June 25, 2008

following MWSD

Commissionersí Conference Room

APPROVED 7/23/08


Commissioner Faye Stewart presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Bill Fleenor, Bobby Green, Sr., and Peter Sorenson present. County Administrator Jeff Spartz, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.




Item 15 a is not a public hearing and it could be taken in the morning.  Item 7 B. 1. has a corrected order for the transient room tax.




Debbie Todd, Florence, asked the Board to consider using Portland State University numbers for the growth rate projections. She said she attended the Planning Commissioner meeting and they discussed using growth rate projections.  She heard the best way was to go the cheapest and the quickest.  She didnít want the Board to use that as a decision.  She wanted the Board to use unbiased non-political source for data.


Howard Shapiro, Florence, stated he is a member of the Lane County Planning Commission. He said he was cut off on his questioning by the City of Florence staff on several concerns voiced to him by his constituents.  He said the constituents are concerned about the procedure to hook up to the city sewer.  He wanted to change his vote. He indicated that it was a motion to go the quickest and cheapest way for the population forecast.  He said they were given no background they could study.  He said he went along with the group.


Leah Patton, Florence, said the City of Florence uses the wrong data to justify expansion of urban growth boundaries and to decide how to allocate the cost of expansion of infrastructure between existing taxpayers and developers.  She said the signs for growth rate projections are critical if planning efforts are to be valid.


Jim Gillette, Eugene, distributed a letter.  He said he wanted justice.


Stewart reported that the Board will have a hearing, but not until the present case exhausts its avenues.  He indicated that once that is closed they will conduct a hearing.


Robert Emmons, Fall Creek, wanted to continue the discussion about the population projections.  He said the Board has been asking to recreate the LCOG forecast using a transparent process with citizen involvement.  He said they just have a proposal from staff to recreate the LCOG forecast using the same type of defective public process.  He said there was no where on the application where it was mentioned about the citizens as stakeholders or the importance of good public process.  He asked for a level playing field where citizens have a say in the matter.


Mona Lindstromberg, Veneta, said citizens need to be a meaningful part of the process.  She commented that the City of Veneta was throwing good money after bad by threatening a legal challenge.  She said by choosing Lane Countyís staff recommendation of Option 2, Veneta will be able to proceed as it has regarding citizen participation.  She said Veneta has a bad track record regarding that issue.  She said County staff is disregarding direction from the majority of the Board.  She said staff is not representing the best interest of the County in this issue.  She asked the Board to support Option 3.


Greg Mott, City of Springfield, recalled the Eugene City Council and the Springfield City Council initiated a Metro Plan amendment to create this population forecast for both cities due to HB 3337.  He added that by January 1, 2010 both cities need to make a determination that their residential inventory could support the demand for a 20 year period.  He noted that neither Eugene nor Springfield has had a population projection because they have never had to take a separate inventory based on a separate urban growth boundary.  He stated that 660.024, the rule interpreting Goal 14 requires a population forecast in order to determine how much land is needed for housing.  He said Eugene and Springfield are stuck on what is occurring with the action the Board will take.  He indicated both councils have adopted the safe harbor method of the population forecast, including a figure that is derived from a methodology and in the event the County doesnít act  on the request for both cities to use the forecast, they attached a form project for safe harbor that LCOG produced in May.  He said the methodology specified in 195.034(2) states the safe harbor remains a proportional relationship of the cities with respect to the County, projected out over a 20 year horizon. He requested Option 2 because they have a time constraint.  He didnít know they could complete the report within their timeframe.  He said they intend to conduct citizen involvement.


Scott Bartlett, Eugene, commented that whatever the Board does for the population forecast, they base it on science and get the true facts and then choose the option that is most fair.  He indicated that during the Budget Committee meetings, more than 4,000 people petitioned to protect LCAS.  He stated that last week he came before the Board to ask to make minor changes and additions to help the agency get off the general fund.  He asked for updated outreach materials for LCAS.  He wanted to approach the save adoptable animal goals.


Zachary Vishinoff, Eugene, announced there is a hearing on July 21 on the U of O alley vacations. He wanted to know the rates and what was appealable.    He thought the 2012 Olympic trials should go to a public hearing.


Mia Nelson, Lowell, said this has been going on for nine months and they are no further along than last August.  She indicated staff is recommending Option 2 and it is the same as before.  She commented that cities have urgent needs and they canít afford more delay.  She was tired being blamed for the delay.  She recalled for the past nine months the Board has said they wanted to take the responsibility for the numbers.


Laurie Segel, Goal 1, said small cities are pressuring the Board but there are no laws mandating that the County do so.  She reported that cities statewide were successful in achieving a legislative fix to the problem of when counties are not scheduled to adopt coordinated population forecasts.   She indicated that there is a frivolous lawsuit against the County filed by several small cities and unsubstantiated assertions by some of the cities for their needs for a specific projection number.  She commented that the intent by Springfield and Eugene to adopt a safe harbor projection has to follow the intent of the statute and it said the cities must give the County six months notice before initiating their post acknowledge plan amendment proposal for the safe harbor.


Mike Farthing, Eugene, stated that he represents Jerry Valencia.  He supported the Boardís initiation of a post acknowledgement plan amendment.  He didnít share some of the comments that the staff and public had been given clear direction for the past nine months.  He thought it was unclear and there were several different directions.  He added there were questions raised that are still not addressed.  He asked about funding.  He stated there is a clear need for the population forecast in Lane County and in Eugene and Springfield.  He said there have been changes in the statute and the rules that clarify the Countyís role. He indicated the changes have to be in the Comp Plan.  He supported Options 1 and 2.  He said a public process will be guaranteed no matter which option is chosen.  He thought it was okay for LCOGís figures to be on the table.


Jerry Valencia, Lowell, said he spoke with Portland State and he was told it was up to Lane County what they want in the study.  He said it was up to Lane County to pay for it.


Heather Kent, Veneta, turned in a letter from Alice Doyle.  She asked the Board to not adopt Option 2 because it does not utilize a neutral third party expert.  She said the primary advantage with Option 3 is that the technical element of the population forecast will be developed by a neutral third party with high expertise in developing population estimates.  She didnít think Option 2 would be better if it were developed locally.  She thought they should tap the expertise of PSU.


Chuck Spies, City Administrator, Lowell, said there was a meeting of city managers where they agreed unanimously for Option 1.  He added that they could live with Option 2 and they wouldnít help fund Option 3 and 4.  He praised Ollie Snowden for all of the work he had done for the City of Lowell.  He said the City of Lowell will miss him.


David Cline, Junction City, said Junction City supported staffís recommendations.  He said they held their hearing on the coordinated population forecast and they held a transparent process.  He said Matt Laird from Land Management has done a great job and has taken abuse from people and he has done his best to make a good solid recommendation.  He echoed the endorsements from the other cities.





a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 08-6-25-2/In the Matter of Adopting the 2008-2009 Lane County Budget, Making Appropriations and Levying Taxes.


Dave Garnick, Finance/Budget Manager, recalled that the Budget Committee approved the budget on May 22 and they have done their required notices.  He noted they had their work session last week to discuss the technical adjustments that needed to be done before full adoption.


Commissioner Stewart opened the Public Hearing.


Merlyn Hough, Director of LRAPA, noted the LRAPA funding request had been removed from budget.  He said that LRAPA anticipated this possibility and will make the necessary adjustments to their own budget to offset the funds as necessary.  He said they want to retain the continued partnership and support with the County.  He added that they value the 40 year partnership they had with Lane County and he believes that Lane County is best protected by having air quality policy and rule making performed by local officials accountable to the local public.  He indicated that Lane County is a key intergovernmental partner to LRAPAís regional air authority.  He commented that while LRAPA has the authority to exist without Lane Countyís ability to support, the ability to protect the air quality would be hampered if the County would continue not to be involved.  He recalled in the early 80ís there was a similar budget crisis in the Countyís inability to meeting its membership dues and the LRAPA Board and the County recognized their role as a key member and voted to continue with the partnership.  He asked for the Countyís continued support.  He believed LRAPA has been an excellent investment.  He said the local dues provide less than 15 percent of the LRAPA budget but it leverages other funds.  He commented that protecting air quality now is more important than ever. He said they are more effective working together.


David Monk, LRAPA, asked the Board to reconsider funding for LRAPA.  He said County residents get benefits from the local agency. He noted the fine money paid to the agency goes into Lane Countyís general fund.  He said an average of $214,000 in the past five years has gone into the general fund.  He commented that the DEQ cannot provide help with the complaints the way LRAPA does. He thought it was important that the partnership remain and asked if some partial funding could be given.


There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Stewart closed the Public Hearing.


MOTION: to transfer $200,000 from the service stabilization reserve to a separate Board of County Commissioners operational contingency account.  The funds will be dedicated to a Lane County coordinated population forecast if such forecast is deemed necessary for fiscal year 08/09, with any remaining funds returned back to the service stabilization reserve.  He further moved that if a Lane County coordinated population forecast is conducted, the cost of such forecast is expected to be partly repaid by beneficiary cities on a pro-rated basis, or as a default will be repaid to the service stabilization reserve with interest by no less than the 50 percent of the long range planning fee collected annually by Land Management.  He further moved that if a Lane County coordinated forecast is deemed necessary during fiscal year 08/09, then that project shall become the number one priority for Land Managementís long range planning.


Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor, SECONDED. 


Sorenson said there is a lot of uncertainty whether they would get the money back and there are a lot of people who could benefit from this for the developers on the peripheral cities who want to develop their property and they canít do it until there is a population.  His support for this idea is premised that the cities are willing to pay for it .  He said they could loan the money but they would have to have some buy in on the part of the people who want to get it done before July 1, 2011 when the census will be complete.


Dwyer didnít expect the smaller cities to pay for the whole thing.  He said whatever the figures are that they be objective, fair and defensible. He said some cities were willing to pay.  He thought they needed the money to do the forecast right and this would allow them to do the process.


Wilson said the first part of Dwyerís motion was budget.  She said the discussion of repayment and priority of Land Management are operational questions.  She recommended separating budget from operation.


Dwyer wanted the first paragraph to deal with the intent to have this discussion as part of their policy for the population forecast.


Garnick said the action stated would set the money aside and at some future date when the Board decides to take action the Board would have to formally direct the money be used in some other fashion.


Sorenson asked how much of the $200,000 could be taken from the road fund given Public Works and Land Management is involved with roads and how much of the planning component involves the public.


Wilson said a population forecast has a piece that has a road impact.  She said the constitution allows limited road planning. She said because the population forecast isnít focused on transportation planning, all of the money would not be allowed from the road fund.  She said the operational contingency account is not a new account. 


Sorenson asked if they had an amendment of the first paragraph, if it would accomplish what Dwyer wanted, to set up the segregated $200,000.  He said it is budgeted for use during the fiscal year and they could discuss when and how the money would be released during the fiscal year.


Dwyer indicated the first paragraph is to deal with intent.  He amended the first part of his motion to transfer $200,000 from the service stabilization reserve to a separate Board of County Commissioners operation contingency account.  He indicated the funds will be dedicated to conducting a Lane County coordinated population forecast if such population forecast is deemed necessary for fiscal year 08/09 with any remaining funds returning back to the service stabilization reserve.


Fleenor SECONDED the amended motion.


VOTE: 4-1 (Green dissenting).


MOTION: to move an additional $70,000 of the general fund from the service stabilization account to LCAS for fiscal year 08/09 for the following purposes and expenditures: $10,000 for the canvas; up to $10,000 to help the Assessor put in the notice in the tax statements about licensing; $7,000 to facilitate the completion of the online dog license sales payment capabilities; up to $3,000 for three interns from 3PM to help with things; an allocation of  up to $10,000 for the creation and design of the full range of license, adoption and additional animal service programs of public information materials and forms, patterned after any identified outstanding animal services agency for outreach materials; up to $10,000 each for save adoptable treatment services: enhancements for medications, a funding for a behavior and training coordinator and $10,000 for veterinarian services rendered by a licensed veterinarian for treatment.


Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.


Sorenson thought it was a good adjustment to the budget. 


Green asked what could be accomplished with $70,000. He questioned whether they could achieve the outcomes.


Karen Gaffney, Health and Human Services, recalled that Animal Services took a cut and the priority of increasing licensing is an important one for the department.  Her concern is in some of the details that were part of the written motion that werenít read allowed that are prescriptive.  She said they hadnít sorted out the details and it was the first time they had heard about interns.  She indicated they have no space at LCAS and there are other issues to be worked out.  She commented that when the Board gives direction, she will follow it.  She asked to be given latitude in the details of how they achieve the outcomes that the Board sets and then report back.


Green wasnít opposed to the intent.  He recommended letting the department set the ways of how they get to the outcomes.


Dwyer said he hoped if they instituted some of the requests that it would bring revenue up. 


Gaffneyís concern was about hiring a graduate student from the 3 PM program.  She asked if there was a better qualified way to get to the intern.


Dwyer agreed.  He said if she could get someone that would work for a stipend for a whole term that was better qualified, then he would be in agreement. He amended his motion to include more latitude.


Wilson recommended that in implementing this, if Gaffney comes up with something that is a problem or a better way of achieving the end result, for her to send the Board an e-mail.  She said if that doesnít accomplish what the Board intended, the Board could weigh in.


Dwyer expected them to implement the policy.  He added if the policy canít be implemented to give it to the agenda team and have a discussion on why it canít be implemented.


Fleenor amended his second.


Sorenson didnít want the motion to be amended.


VOTE: 5-0.



MOTION: to redirect $42,800 from the road fund to LRAPA for the FY 08/09  budget.


Sorenson MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.


Sorenson wanted the Board to redirect $42,800 from the road fund to LRAPA for the FY 08/09 budget.  He stated it was unfair that Lane County took $214,000 in general fund money from LRAPA over the past five years and this year they reduce the allocation of road funds from $118,000 to zero.  His motion would reinstate what they have been providing to the County.  He wanted to maintain a partnership.


Stewart said the fines are intended to come to Lane County and it doesnít produce an incentive to create fines.  He was concerned they were basing a payment on LRAPA on the amount of fines they place.  He was concerned about Mr. Monkís statement that they would be increasing the potential fine revenue in the future because they are going to be stricter on polluters.  He said he wouldnít support the motion.  He thought other organizations they are not able to fund are as equally important.


Dwyer said it was a token gesture to let LRAPA know they have serious budgetary constrains and it severely reduces the amount of support but what the agency does is important.


Fleenor requested amending the amount to $45,000 so there is no relationship between the fines and averages versus what they are contributing.


Sorenson thought they should respond to the request to show the support.  He said this shows their support.  He thought by putting $45,000 back in the budget, it shows they are a partner.


VOTE: 3-2 (Green, Stewart dissenting).


MOTION: to approve ORDER 08-6-25-2 as amended.


Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.





A. Approval of Minutes:

June 11, 2008, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.

June 11, 2008, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.


B. County Administration


1) ORDER 08-6-25-3/In the Matter of Approving the Use of Transient Room Tax Funds for Operational Purposes for the Fairgrounds for FY 08-09.


2) ORDER 08-6-25-4/In the Matter of Approving the Use of Transient Room Tax Funds for Operational Purposes for the Florence Events Center for FY  08-09.


3) ORDER 08-6-25-5/In the Matter of Approving the Use of Transient Room Tax for Campground Operations Purposes in Lane County Public Works - Parks  Division for FY 08-09.


C. Assessment and Taxation


1) ORDER 08-6-25-6/In the Matter of a Refund to New Edge Network Inc. in the Amount of $42,490.85.


D. Public Works


1. ORDER 08-6-25-7/In the Matter of Dedicating Land Owned by Lane County and Accepting it For Public and County Road Purposes for Cantrell Road (County Road Number 418) (18-05-02).


2. ORDER 08-6-25-8/In the Matter of Accepting a Dedication of Land to be Used as a Public Road Easement For County Road No. 1183 (Bolton Hill Road) (17-06-36-4).


3. ORDER 08-6-25-9/In the Matter of Setting a Public Hearing for The Proposed Vacation of Portions of First Avenue (Co. Rd.  856), The Alley In Block 28 and Falcon Street as Platted and Recorded in the Plat of Heceta Beach (Bk. 7, P. 25), Lane County, Oregon Plat Records (18-12-04-13 & 42).


4. ORDER 08-6-25-10/In the Matter of Authorizing Application for Funding From the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for Fund Congestion Management and Safety Improvements on Delta Highway.


5. ORDER 08-6-25-11/In the Matter of Designating Board of Commissioner Representation on the Management Oversight Committee for the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Beltline Corridor Study.


6) ORDER 08-6-25-16/In the Matter of Authorizing the Execution of a Farm Use and Forest Management Easement in Connection with Development of Armitage Park Campground on T.L. 17-03-09-11-00200.


7) ORDER 08-6-25-17/In the Matter of Setting a Public Hearing to Consider the Proposed Legalization of a Portion of Barrett Creek Lane, Located in the Northwest One Quarter of the Southeast One Quarter (NW1/4SE1/4) of Section 34, Township 18 South, Range 12 West of the Willamette Meridian (18-12-34-42).


E. Workforce Partnership


1) ORDER 08-6-25-12/In the Matter of Appointing a Title V Program Representative to the Lane Workforce Partnership Board of Directors.


F. Public Safety


1) ORDER 08-6-25-18/In the Matter of Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Execute Memorandum of Understanding Between City of Eugene Police Department, City of Springfield, and Lane County.


MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar.


Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.





ORDER 08-6-25-20 Approval of an Agreement with Motorola for Services and Equipment Related to the Acquisition and Installation of a Multi Jurisdictional Communications System in the Amount of $4,240,338.00.


Russ Burger, Sheriff, reported that they were awarded $9 million to connect the seven counties in the Fourth Congressional District. He indicated Phase 1 is complete.  He said they want to move to Phase 2 and Phase 3.  He noted over the past two days they have been in contract negotiations with Motorola.


MOTION: to approve ORDER 08-6-25-20.


Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.





Stewart indicated there have been several comments made during Public Comment about staff not following commissionersí direction. He believes staff has been following commissionersí direction.  He recalled the coordinated population study started nine months ago, but for the first three months they asked LCOG to do more public input and they did that for three months.  He said in December when they heard from the citizens that it wasnít appropriate, the Board took the authority back and directed staff to figure out how they were going to perform the coordinated population projection function and from that they came back in April.  He recalled at that time the Board passed a resolution on April 30 that was appealed by the small cities and DLCD.  He said because of the lawsuit by the small cities, the Board passed another motion and staff is presenting today exactly what was asked for from that motion.  He thought the citizens should be mad at the Board, not at staff as staff as been directed what to do and they have followed the direction.  He indicated that staff has come back with four options.


Dwyer said there wonít be a board meeting next week and he wished his wife Happy Anniversary.  He said he has been married for 53 years.  He was not sorry about his position on the growth of Oregon.  He said he has been in Eugene for 50 years and he didnít come here to go to California.  He chose Lane County to raise his children and he wasnít sorry.  He has concerns about growth and he shares them with Junction City.  He has concerns about utilizing the best soils for houses and roads when they are in a food production crisis.  He said they need to think about feeding the population given the oil crisis and the cost of transportation.  He said it is not about money with him, it is about making sound public policy based on the common good.  He resented being taken out of context.


Sorenson said he took trips to Florence and Prineville.  He said the impacts with increased gas prices are the same amount with truck traffic but there is a reduction in car traffic.  He said the implications are going to be seen quickly because of the cost it takes to get to communities.  He said there was an economy of scale with moving freight long distances down the track instead of down the freeway.




a. ORDER 08-6-25-13/In the Matter of Ordering the Acceptance of the Seventh Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Regional Investment Plan Fiscal Agent.


Milo Mecham, LCOG, explained that this is a minor housekeeping amendment to the intergovernmental agreement that governs the operation of the Regional Investment Board.  He said it recognizes the expenditures the legislature has asked the RIB to make when the legislature modified the RIB authority in February and March. He said this is asking the Board to approve the housekeeping amendment.


Fleenor asked about LCOG being a fiscal agent.


Wilson said there is an intergovernmental agreement among the counties that creates the RIB and an intergovernmental agreement between the counties and the fiscal agents.


Fleenor asked if it was statutorily required that they have LCOG be the fiscal agent on behalf of the County.


Wilson didnít know.


Fleenor wanted a work session about the status of the fiscal agent and  to see whether they would continue the arrangement.  He said other activities may not have been authorized and he wanted to take an opportunity to review this.


Wilson explained that a majority of the work for the RIB is done by Cascades West.  She added that Cascades West is the council of governments for three of the four partners in the RIB.  She indicated that LCOG is playing more of a mediator role between Cascades West and Lane County.  She said given the lack of funding for regional investment projects from the last legislature, they might be spending time looking at something that is going to go away.  She said this amendment is finishing off some pieces. She thought a discussion should be in the future to see if there was even going to be a Regional Investment Board.


Fleenor wanted to consolidate as many governmental functions as they can given that they  have created multiple layers of bureaucracy and he thought this was an example.


MOTION: to approve ORDER 08-6-25-13.


Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.


Dwyer thought they needed to have a list of what functions they currently outsource to LCOG and what the cost of those services is. He wanted to have a work session on that information.


Stewart indicated there is no funding to the RIBís.  He said they needed to appoint citizen members to the RIB. He asked between now and the legislative session if they could leave those positions with the same people in place.  He said if the RIB is not continuing in the future, he didnít want to go through the process of posting for new members.


Mecham agreed that it would be a waste of the Boardís resources to go through the process.  He indicated there are two openings on the RIB board.  He said given what little authority they will have, he thought it was appropriate to allow the current membership roll forward.


VOTE: 5-0.


Fleenor was more interested in statutory authorities the County has surrendered to LCOG instead of a list of services and other items they provide.


b. RECOGNITION/Ollie Snowden.


The Board acknowledged Ollie Snowden for his years of service to Lane County.


c. RECOGNITION/Warren Wong.


The Board acknowledged Warren Wong for his years of service to Lane County.




a. Announcements




b. ORDER 08-6-25-14/In the Matter of Designating Management of the Lane County Events Center and Fairgrounds.(Jeff Spartz)


Spartz explained that this is to respond to Warren Wongís retirement. He indicated that under existing state law, the Fair Board would name his replacement.  He added they donít have a current Fair Board.  He indicated this order is to recreate the Fair Board that would have responsibility under state law for overseeing and operating the annual County Fair and the Events Center and the fairgrounds facility itself would come under direction of the Board of Commissioners through the County Administrator and he would be responsible for appointing the successor.  He thought if the timing worked, the Fair Board could be involved with the selection of the fair director so everyone can work together to make sure the assets are well managed.


Fleenor supported this but recommended a change to the board order.


Wilson recommended putting down ď will reside.Ē


MOTION: to approve ORDER 08-6-25-14 as amended.


Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.


Green asked if the motion included the committee vacancy.


Wilson explained the way it is set up is the Board of Commissioners could have a Fair Board membership with as small as three members and as large as seven members.  She said that each commissioner would choose a representative.


Stewart was in support of moving forward.  He was concerned about the financial impact.  He thought the direction could cost about $100,000, knowing that every dollar is precious to the fairgrounds operation.


VOTE 5-0.





a. ORDER 08-6-25-15/In the Matter of Repealing Resolution No. 08-4-30-12 and Initiating an Updated Countywide Coordinated Population Forecast Effort for Consideration as an Amendment to the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan (NBA & PM 5/28/08).


Matt Laird, Land Management, recalled in late 2007 population forecasting showed up and the Board had discussions with citizens and LCOG about the authority for population forecasting, methodologies and processes involved with doing population forecasting.  He said in January the Board rescinded LCOGís authority to do population forecasting and adopted an order stating that on February 13.  He added on February 20 the Board asked Land Management to provide information and options on doing population forecasting.  He noted on April 9 Land Management brought a memo with multiple options on doing population forecasting.  He added at that meeting a late letter from DLCD came in and no ultimate decision was made by the Board.  He indicated that it was continued to April 30.  He said at that meeting he provided a supplemental memo with four more options that could be followed.  He indicated at that meeting, the Board adopted ORDER 08-4-30-12.  He added on May 28, Junction City asked for a population forecast under that order.  He came to the Board to discuss the resolution and the Board asked for options.  He said the Board withdrew the order for reconsideration.


Laird explained there were different options for preparing population forecasting.  He came up with five options.  He indicated the fist option was the LCOG report that had previously been adopted.  He thought that could be processed as a rural plan amendment or Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment (PAPA).  He indicated they would take that to the Planning Commission and the Board for the standard land use process that provides for public opportunity to comment.  He thought that would take three to six months and .25 FTE.  He said they currently have an application fee for the rural comprehensive plan amendment that is major for $16,603.75.


Laird noted that Option 2 is the bottom up approach.  He said the option would coordinate with the cities, have them develop their population data locally at their level, hold public hearings, provide the information to them and they would go back through the land use  process to the Planning Commission and make recommendations to the Board.  He recommended Option 2 because it was the most flexible and the one that could be done in a time frame that would work with cities.  He recalled the cities were the ones who requested the information.  He recalled with the previous discussions, he heard the problems with the LCOG process was there wasnít enough opportunity for citizen involvement and they didnít think they held a real land use process.  He believed Lane County would hold a land use process and opinions would be discussed and the public would have three opportunities to participate.  He said it comes with the rural comp application fee for a PAPA, .25 FTE, with an estimated time of six to twelve months for $16,603.75.


Laird stated that Option 3 is a top down approach.  He said Lane County would hire a consultant (Portland State University) and contract with the consultant.  Laird said they would develop the numbers and they would coordinate with the cities and go through the public process.  He said in discussions with Portland State University, they are having staff shortages.  He indicated the time frames he is hearing from them are in July, they could move into contract in August, with a start date in September.  He said the technical component to create the forecast could take between six and nine months.  He added that it could go longer depending on how involved they are with the land use process.  He noted for the entire PABA, he estimated it would take 12 to 18 months, .50 FTE and the cost associated is from $100,000 to $120,000.  He added that $50,000 would be for Portland State University.


Laird discussed Option 4.  He said in the population plan they would develop a comprehensive analysis of population and demographics for Lane County.  He said they would contract with PSU, they would be coordinating with the public to develop a framework for the plan.  He added that they would be engaging citizens in discussions of growth topics in Lane County and they would coordinate with the cities. He explained it would be a bigger plan.  He indicated it would be a new segment of their Comp Plan that currently doesnít exist.  He said the previous three options would be a detailed report.  He estimated that it would take 18 to 24 months, with 1 FTE, for a cost between $150,000 to $200,000.


Laird said Option 5 is to take no action.  He said it would revive the appeals on the past resolution and they would go to LUBA.  He though that would take three to nine months and $20,000 to $60,000. 


Laird recalled from the last meeting, he heard from the Board they wanted to hear from the stakeholders group and they wanted staff to talk with the stakeholder groups.  He had spoken with Mia Nelson and Jerry Valencia.  He also spoke with the Goal 1 Coalition and the Homebuilders Association of Lane County.  He also spoke with the metro and small cities.  He added there was discussion at the Planning Commission.  He noted at the June 19 regional managers meeting, he presented these options to the cities who attended.  He said the cities likely would participate with options 1 and 2.  He said they werenít interested in participating in Options 3 and 4.  He engaged DLCD and discussed the options for funding.  He had been told to file for a technical assistance grant to see what they would get.  He thought they would get some money, but it wouldnít cover everything.


Laird recommended Option 2. He thought Option 1 had been reviewed and people werenít interested in pursuing it.  He noted there are stakeholders who feel they invested a lot of time and energy into it and it they would prefer that option being chosen.  He thought Option 4 was a more timely and expensive option.  He commented that it felt more like a luxury, but they donít have the resources. He added that it didnít work for the timeframe of the cities who are requesting this study.  He thought Options 2 or 3 would work.  He preferred Option 2 because he didnít think Option 3 could work in a time frame that would work for the cities.  He thought the cities would pursue other options.  He also couldnít get any certainty for funding in Option 3.


Sorenson asked if cities could possibly pay for the public involvement and not use the $200,000 from reserves.


Laird said the only funding that would have certainty would be from the long range planning surcharge.  He said that money comes directly from permit fees paid by the rural applicants who donít live in urban areas.  He said that seems unfair to the cities.  He thought he could possibly get a small amount of money from DLCD, but it wouldnít cover all of it.  He would be willing to go back and discuss it with the regional managers.  He indicated they were clear at the last meeting that they werenít interested in participating.


Sorenson asked if there were beneficiaries from the population projections that would benefit them as individuals, if they could get more creative in finding the money to get public involvement.


(The following part of the discussion took place in the afternoon)


Laird reported that during the lunch break he received a letter from the Home Builders Association and a card from the representative of the Association of Realtors for Lane County.  He said there was confusion on the agenda and they showed up to provide testimony.  He asked if the Board would take testimony.


Ed McMahon, Eugene, Executive Vice President, Homebuilders Association, stated the Homebuilders Association urged the Board to move forward toward completion of the coordinated population study for the County.  He commented that Lane County has seen a high amount of growth in recent years and an updated population forecast is necessary for appropriate long term planning for the County.  He said they strongly recommend Option 2.  He thought that option allowed each individual city to work in the time frame necessary for their planning needs.  He said they also have concerns about the cost of the study.  He said if Option 3 is selected, they think it places an unreasonable cost burden on small cities in Lane County.  He stated that Option 2 allows each city to have a population number at a reasonable cost and within a reasonable time frame.  He added that it also gives cities flexibility for their needs.  He said that Eugene and Springfield would be able to proceed with the safe harbor approach to meet the timing requirement for HB3337 and the other cities could determine the methodology that best meets their needs and they could proceed.


Jim Welsh, Eugene Association of Realtors, said the challenge from the smaller communities in Option 2 will address them.  They recommended what Laird has put together.  He thought it would be good without further amendments.


With regard to Sorensonís suggestion of private opportunities available, Laird stated it was something that he had not looked into.


Fleenor said during lunch, he drafted an order.  He distributed the order to the Board, asking for input. He said it is looking at implementing Option 4 and to come back in two weeks to provide specific information and details as to what the cost would be, when they could start and how long it would take for PSU.  He said that staff will contact all of the stakeholders in this matter including but not limited to cities, DLCD, utility companies, private sector business and individuals to determine the extent each would be willing to contribute to defray the cost of the study.  He wanted Laird to go out to the community to see if there is any commitment by these individuals to help share in the cost.


Dwyer stated that whether or not a city will contribute to the cost of the survey, he wonít be pushed into adopting something.  He said this study benefits everyone in Lane County and it is something required.  He added if they do it, he wants to do it right.


Sorenson commented that this is action oriented. He wanted to see the best effort of Land Management to try to pull together the necessary funders.  He noted one of the clauses of the board order is to repeal the previous resolution that states they are not going to rely on the LCOG population numbers.  He asked by repealing the Board order if they are not adopting LCOG.


Vorhes said all the order language says is to repeal the previous action.  He said they would need a subsequent order that says they adopt the LCOG report to get to the second step of his description.  He said it contemplates starting the process.  He said it adds the numbers the Board chooses to apply in each of the urban area as part of the land use process.  He thought the other options could play out in the same way.


Sorenson asked if they should get the help for smaller cities.


Vorhes said what will legally happen if the Board adopts a new decision that affects the previous decision is it will be sent to LUBA as the reconsidered decision that was on appeal with LUBA before the Board directed them to withdraw the decision for reconsideration.  He added if they are fine with the order and the decision and donít see any issues in the action that needs further review by LUBA, it would free up any money they would spend articulating their issues or the money the County would spend.  He added if nothing is done and the resolution remains on the table and is not affected by a subsequent Board action and a reconsidered decision is not sent to LUBA within the 90 days provided under the LUBA rules, the appeal would start up again.  He noted if the reconsideration decision rescinds the previous resolution, a debate over that action is terminated.


Sorenson asked if the language was sufficient to state they are repealing the prior board order.


Vorhes said the language in the draft board order that was just distributed, creates the action on the resolution that is not final unless something else happens.  He said it depends on the other party to the appeal.  He recommended that if the Board were to use the revised resolution and move to a different option, that they take pieces of the resolution and not change the first paragraph and replace the second paragraph that describes the process with the new language with minor suggestions that would make it clearer which path in the 5 options the Board was interested in proceeding.


Sorenson thought it was a way to get a greater level of public involvement and the issues surrounding  the population estimate and to get PSU to do the study and to put together a funding mechanism so the Board doesnít have to pay all the money out of the general funds reserve.


Vorhes sent the packet of information and called attention to the proposal order and asked the counsel for DLCD and the cities if they saw any problems with the proposed orders and the other options.  He got an impression from DLCD that as long as the Board was moving in the direction toward a coordinated population forecasting countywide, their level of concern would be reduced.  He heard from the counsel representing the cities of the options.  He indicated that the cities have a preference, but as long as the action of the Board repealed the prior resolution that would end that litigation.


Stewart asked if they did nothing, what the options would be for the cities.


Laird said they could file a land use application with the County and they would be required to take action on the land use application.


Stewart said one of the reasons he voted in favor of taking the $200,000 out of reserves was because there are two processes they could take. He said if the bottom up approach works and that is being requested by the small cities, and if the Board wants a different process, then the board should pay for a different process.  He asked if they went with Option 3, if they could help speed up the timeline.  He said Junction City needs to have something by February and he understood none of these processes meet the February timeline.


Laird noted in his discussions with Portland State that he will get that number in July and work on a contract in August with a start date in September.  He couldnít guarantee that he could get the information in two weeks.  He said they could start to work on the technical component of the population forecast but they might have to wait until that is done and people could comment on it.  He commented that based on the opinions, that it would be a lengthy process and up to appeal.


Green thought the order needed review.  He recalled the last time they adopted an order it was fraught with concerns and that was what triggered the pressures.  He asked if the cities couldnít help pay, if the County would have to pay.  He commented that this is an order directing staff to go back and do something else.  He said the Board is directing staff to take the extra effort.  He commented that the next time when someone from public comment states that staff is dragging their feet, to remind them that this is a board order directing staff to do this.  He didnít support the earlier motion for the $200,000 to be taken out of reserves because he had been under the premise that they were in a financial crisis.  He would have been more supportive if the $200,000 could have been used internally for Lane County needs.  He agreed there is a need to do this, but if other people were willing to pay for this, he thought $200,000 could have been better spent for other services.


Dwyer said the LUBA challenge becomes moot and they donít have a resolution because they repealed it.  He said they now have a clean slate and whatever they do it is without challenge. He voted for the $200,000 because he didnít want the threat of money or an excuse there is no money not to do it right in the first place.  He thought if they embarked on a scientific population projection that is fair to everyone and based on historical and factual documentation, if one of the cities doesnít like the results and they donít want to help pay for it, then their citizens need to know that. He said it requires a PAPA to expedite this.  He said it is not a special use permit because it amends the comprehensive plan after the amendment has been adopted.  He said it has to be adopted that way or it is not valid and subject to challenge.  He indicated that Lane County could start the PAPA process and they donít have to wait for the cities to initiate one.  He wanted to initiate the process, engage the experts and adopt a population forecast that is honest, defensible and in everyoneís best interest so the citizens will build the infrastructure necessary to meet those projections.


MOTION: to reconsider the action by which they passed ORDER 08-4-30-12.


Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.


Vorhes said if the Board votes to reconsider the previous resolution and the vote on the resolution is they do not adopt it, he didnít think there was anything to debate at LUBA and the appeals would go away. 


Sorenson asked if they could have a pay as you go cost recovery.


Vorhes said assuming the Board approves the motion to reconsider and on reconsideration of the motion to approve ORDER 08-4-30-12, that motion is defeated so the resolution does not pass, he said they would send it to LUBA. He said it would provide additional time for Laird to explore other ways of dealing with Options 3 and Options 4. He recalled the Board has adopted revised fees that will continue until July 1 where anyone before July 1 who makes an application, would be functioning under the adopted fee process for a major plan amendment and after July 1 it will be a major plan amendment key structure.  He said the new fee is a full cost recovery based on the Maximus study and the Board would have to decide on what PAPA asks the Board to do. 


Dwyer said it needed to be kept clean.  He thought the legal resolution gave better opportunity to review what the proposal is and a greater understanding between Land Management.  He said it has to go through the process and come back and everyone would feel better about a resolution that goes through the process.  He asked the Board to vote for the motion to reconsider and voting no on the original resolution. He commented that Land Management needed to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.


Sorenson asked about the issues raised by the original resolution.


Vorhes responded that they donít know all the issues for the appeal and they wonít know until they see the brief.  He said it was the resolution or action on the LCOG report and the length of time it might take.  He recalled from DLCDís perspective, their perception of the portion of the resolution that said the Board intended to conduct a population forecast at the next periodic review caused them concern because they werenít sure it would happen.  They thought that it would necessitate the County having to do any coordinated population forecasting and they were uncomfortable with the idea that Lane County decided not to do anything on  population forecasting.  He hadnít seen any written concerns of DLCD around the resolution.  He thought having a document that ended the other document would be easier for LUBA, but there was no guarantee.


VOTE: 5-0.


MOTION: to move they not approve ORDER 08-40-30-12.


Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.


Dwyer said they want to do a study and a PAPA and they want it expedited.  He said they want a concurrent Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners meeting together so they donít draw this out.  He said they have $200,000 in the reserves that are earmarked for this with the hope they could recover a modest amount to replenish the reserve. 


Green said if the population study becomes the number one priority for Land Management, he hoped to see what other projects or priorities are lower.


Laird indicated he would bring the long range work plan to the Board.


Sorenson thought using the money would immediately cause budget problems and he didnít think the Board would put general fund dollars into Land Management activities.


Fleenor commented if it is an expedited process then it is a priority.  He said there are resources and he thought if they had to drop other things to get it done, the cities and citizens of Lane County will benefit.


Stewart thought the earliest it could come back is July 23 and they have lost another month.  He commented that it was hard to believe they were going to have a joint Planning Commission/Board of Commissioners meeting so they are bypassing one of the public comment periods.  He reiterated that was what they have been hearing from the people that there has not been enough public process.  He commented this was uncomfortable for him.  He hoped in July they would have clearer direction.


Spartz thought they would need a signed agreement and work plan with Portland State before they bring it to the Board.


Laird reported the last e-mail he had said Portland State would work with Lane County on population research and cost estimates in July.  He hoped by July 23 that he would have that information and come back to the Board. 


Stewart asked if someone deemed the LCOG process illegal and indefensible.  He asked if Portland State University could have legal authority.


Vorhes explained that the process used generating population data figures, whether it is LCOG, PSU or anyone else, isnít driven by the land use process.  He indicated the complaint was that LCOG was governed by a land use process and he didnít think they were. He said they were not functioning as the land use decision maker in that role. He indicated that they were performing what the Board of Commissioners had delegated to them in 1974 to do coordination among the various entities that do have the land use jurisdiction:  the cities, the county and special districts.  He said the board order said they did have the authority.  He said from a process standpoint, it would have to go through the land use process of the Board of Commissioners as well as the cities that includes citizen involvement, public participation and coordination. He understood the action was that there were controversies involved, it didnít resolve whether there was legal authority or not or whether their process or results were bad.  He urged the Board not to reach those conclusions yet because they might be asked to make those judgments later in a land use proceeding.  He added that was why the resolution adopted on April 30 was problematic.  He commented that the Boardís actions speak for themselves.


Vorhes said whatever process the Board will be involved in, they will be called on to reach conclusion on the data, reports and population that are proposed for the urban areas in the County and all of the methodology when they get to the plan amendment adoption stage.  He said previously sending the minutes to LUBA reflecting the action might raise an action about whether it is final.  He said LUBA looks to see what is memorialized in an order signed to make it final.  He wanted to take the proposed order and frame it as stopping at the resolution as repealed and bring it back to the Board for review. 


MOTION: to approve ORDER 08-6-25-15.


Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0









Stewart announced the Olympic Trials kicks off Friday evening.  He indicated that a majority of the Board will be attending.


Dwyer said he is going to the Trials on Saturday and on Monday he will be giving the award to the winner of the womanís javelin.


Green reported on Monday he spent the time in Salem attending different meetings.


12. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660










a. THIRD READING AND DELIBERATION Ordinance No. PA 1247/In the Matter of Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Text, Chapter III, Section D., Policy D.11; Adopting an Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15, Willamette River Greenway; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (File No. PA 08-5230) (NBA & PM 6/11/08 & 6/24/08).


MOTION: to approve a Third Reading and Setting a Fourth Reading and Deliberation for July 30, 2008.


Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.


VOTE: 4-0 (Green out of room).



There being no further business, Commissioner Stewart adjourned the meeting at 3:05 p.m.



Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary